4K Raw from BMCC good enough for stock footage vs RED or Sony
 

Hi all,

Ever since I read about the Red Scarlet with 3K Raw, I've envisioned shooting anything and everything in RAW 3K, and selling it on stock footage sites. I don't know if it would sell or not, naturally depends on what was shot. But my thought was that the Red Scarlet 3K for around 3K (way back when) was going to be "affordable" to shoot good quality uncompressed RAW footage and allow anyone who buys it to use/edit it as they see fit, rather than stuck with compressed footage.

Now that the Scarlet + accessories is like 15K+, and the BMCC 4K RAW is coming soon, I am wondering if the footage shot in 4K RAW on the BMCC would be considered good for stock footage sites? I would think so, based on the footage I've seen from the 2.5K BMCC.

It's a pipe dream no doubt, of mine, but I thought it might justify the case for buying the 4K camera + a good lens or two, although given that I can't afford the 4K right now, I am leaning towards the Rokinon Cine lens, the 85mm and the 24mm. The quality of those lens for the price is outstanding.

Speaking of, would those lens work with 4K good enough, or not be good enough for 4K resolution acquisition?

Thanks.

Re: 4K Raw from BMCC good enough for stock footage vs RED or Sony
 

Those lenses have the same glass elements as their non-Cine counterparts. Those still lenses take absolutely gorgeous pictures with the 20+ megapixel camera's like the 5D. So I wouldn't be too worried about resolution when shooting video with just over 8 megapixel (4K) :-)

Re: 4K Raw from BMCC good enough for stock footage vs RED or Sony
 

Good point. I asked that because I've read about special cinematic lenses that can handle 4K to 8K cameras.. and they aren't cheap.. so I figured maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't be good enough or sharp enough for 4K.

Re: 4K Raw from BMCC good enough for stock footage vs RED or Sony
 

I went to the 1DC demo at NAB the canon REP stated that the EOS L lens would have no problem with 4K or 8K RES.

Re: 4K Raw from BMCC good enough for stock footage vs RED or Sony
 

It's the mechanics that make cine lenses more expensive, also reducing breathing during focus adjustments.

Re: 4K Raw from BMCC good enough for stock footage vs RED or Sony
 

No RAW submissions. You have to manipulate the RAW files and then send the clients the output in whatever format. Licenses are often based on resolution, apart from geography, duration etc etc.

If the same RAW files are with many people, how will you prove your ownership? I am not sure what kind of meta data is embedded in the BMC camera and whether it can be used to prove ownership.

I can visualise that this is going to be worse than micro stock photography where you don't even make a dollar per photo.

Re: 4K Raw from BMCC good enough for stock footage vs RED or Sony
 

This: Blackmagic Cinema Camera vs. Red Scarlet – Zeiss vs. Samyang Part 1 | Frank Glencairn

and that: Blackmagic Cinema Camera vs. Red Scarlet ? Zeiss vs. Samyang Part 2 | Frank Glencairn

may answer your questions.

Frank

Re: 4K Raw from BMCC good enough for stock footage vs RED or Sony
 

Yes, the footage shot on the BMPC 4k is good enough for stock footage. Most any 1080p camera is as well, for that matter. The BMPC 4k was designed for output far beyond stock footage. It was designed for digital film cinema production for anything from low budget indie films to mega budget Hollywood studio productions. It's quite interesting to see people asking questions about if certain cameras "are good enough" for this that and the other. It's truly amazing what's available for such a small price these days. I mean no offense to anyone because I'm a gear nerd and easily get caught up in pixel peeping but I also maintain a focus on what content I want to create and story to tell. Having said that, I've pre-ordered a BMPC 4k and can't wait to start using it!